PAUL RENAU, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Paul Renau was convicted of attempted burglary of an unoccupied structure and appealed, arguing that Florida Statute Section 777.04(4)(c), which punishes attempted burglary as a third-degree felony regardless of the degree of burglary attempted, violates equal protection and due process rights. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute satisfies equal protection requirements by establishing a rational classification based on the legitimate state objective of protecting citizens and property.
Section 777.04(4)(c) does not violate equal protection because it establishes a rational classification grounded in the legitimate state objective of protecting citizens and property from the threat of burglary invasion. All offenders within the class of burglary offenders are treated the same and charged alike as third-degree felons.
[1] A statute does not violate equal protection if it treats all persons within a class the same and the division into classes bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate…
[2] The legislature may rationally classify attempted burglary as a felony, serving the legitimate state objective of protecting citizens and their property.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To comply with equal protection requirements, a statute must treat all people within a class the same, and the division into classes must bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective.”
Establishes the legal standard for equal protection analysis that the court applies to Section 777.04(4)(c)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRenau was found guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree of an unoccupied structure. Under Florida Statute Section 777.04(4)(c), attempted bur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order finding him guilty of attempted burglary of an unoccupied structure in violation of Sections 810.02(3) and 777.04(4)(c), Florida Statutes. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge on the ground that Section 777.-04(4)(c) is unconstitutional and violative of his rights of equal protection and due process. We affirm.
Appellant was found guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree. Section 777.-04(4)(c) provides:
If the offense attempted, solicited, or conspired to is a felony of the second degree or any burglary, the person convicted shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree .... (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the attempt to commit third degree burglary is punishable under that statutory provision to the same extent as the consummated crime of third degree burglary. Although Section 777.04(4) operates generally to reduce an attempted crime one degree below the consummated crime, pursuant to 777.04(4)(c) offenders who attempt a first degree burglary are reduced two degrees to third degree burglary whereas those who attempt a third degree burglary receive no reduction for the unconsummated crime. Appellant’s position is that that result violates equal protection in that all people who fall within the classification of “any burglary” are not treated equally. We disagree.
To comply with equal protection requirements, a statute must treat all people within a class the same, and the division into classes must bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective. Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707 (Fla.1981); Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1978). The Florida Legislature acted within its province in declaring that such a serious crime as attempted burglary deserved to be punished always as a felony and never as a misdemeanor. See Massey v. State, 348 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) and State ex rel. Washington v. Rivkind, 350 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The legislature’s categorization of this criminality constitutes a reasonable classification based upon the legitimate state objective of protecting citizens and their property from the threat of invasion. We conclude that the classification, as felons, of all those persons attempting burglary is grounded on a rational basis. Further, all offenders within the class are treated the same and are subject to being charged alike, as third degree felons, and none are treated more harshly than others. Therefore, Section 777.04(4)(c) does not violate equal protection.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloodworth v. State, 504 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…tion. We disagree. In order to comply with equal protection requirements, a statute must treat all people within a class the same, and the division into classes must bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective. Renau v. State, 436 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The Equal Protection clause admits to a wide discretion in the exercise by the state of its power to classify in the [*499] promulgation of police laws, and even though application of such laws may result in some inequality, the…
-
Keefe John Rini v. State, 496 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…See Florida Department of Transportation v. E.T. Legg & Co., 472 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). To comply with equal protection requirements, a classification must bear some reasonable relationship to a legitimate state objective. Renau v. State, 436 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The HRS client services manual fails to adequately articulate any adequate basis for the distinction in services between residential and nonresidential clients, and the record in this case provides none. The creation of two suc…
Authorities Cited
- Carmelos Soverino v. State, 356 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1978)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Nathaniel D. Wash. & Anthony Adams v. Rivkind, 350 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Massey v. State, 348 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Haber v. State, 396 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1981)